Wakilii

Kazooya v Attorney General Anor (Misc. Cause No. 0197 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 22 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel payment of a decretal sum arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 64 of 2003
Decision
Application dismissed without prejudice to future enforcement should the respondents fail to budget for the claim as promised

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

An application for mandamus to compel payment of a decretal sum by the Attorney General was dismissed as premature. The court held that where government had not budgeted for the claim at the time of demand and undertook to budget for it in the next financial year, there was no unequivocal refusal to pay. The application was filed too hastily before a reasonable time had elapsed.

Outcome

Application dismissed without prejudice to future enforcement should the respondents fail to budget for the claim as promised

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against the Attorney General in High Court Civil Suit 64 of 2003 on 10 December 2014. A decree was extracted on 12 July 2015. The applicant obtained a certificate of costs of UGX 856,967,922 on 30 September 2015 and a certificate of order against government on 13 October 2015. The certificate was served on 15 October 2015. A demand for payment of the decretal sum of UGX 6,018,590,715 was made on 15 October 2015. When no payment was made, the applicant filed this application on 22 December 2015. The Attorney General explained that by the time of demand, the budgeting process for financial year 2015/16 had ended and the claim had not been budgeted for, but undertook to budget for it in financial year 2016/2017.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents should be compelled by mandamus to pay the decretal sum of UGX 6,018,590,715 to the applicant.
  2. Whether the respondents' failure to pay constitutes an unequivocal refusal justifying the issuance of mandamus.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Requirements for Grant
For an application for mandamus to succeed, the applicant must establish: (1) a legal right to have something done by the respondent and that the respondent is under duty to do it; (2) that performance of the duty by the respondent is necessary; (3) that he or she has demanded that the thing be done or that the respondent performs the duty; (4) that the demand has been unequivocally refused; and (5) that there is no other remedy available.
Execution Against Government — Budgetary Constraints as Defence
Where government has not budgeted for a decretal sum at the time a certificate of order against government is served, and undertakes to budget for the claim in the next financial year, this constitutes a valid defence to an application for mandamus and does not amount to an unequivocal refusal to pay.
Mandamus — Prematurity of Application
An application for mandamus filed barely two months after service of a certificate of order against government and before a reasonable time has elapsed for government to budget for the claim will be dismissed as hurriedly filed and premature.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • China Civil Engineering Construction Company v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 71 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kazooya v Attorney General Anor (Misc. Cause No. 0197 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 22 (30 March 2016)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.